we know is going to strike us and is already striking us, from the growth in the birthrate and the subsequent enrollment.

That is the second part. First, more children; second, nowhere to put them.

Third, the supply of young women and men who are trained to teach is now far short of the demand for new teachers. We need new teachers to take care of the enrollment increases, or to take the place of people who leave the teaching profession for retirement or death or, more commonly, for better financial employment. I am not speaking now of reducing the size of the classes or making other desirable changes. I am speaking merely of perpetuating the existing status. We do not have enough teachers now; we do not have enough in training to meet this situation.

Let me give you 1 or 2 facts to highlight that. The public schools now employ something over, in round numbers, 1 million teachers. Each year one-tenth of this total leaves the teaching profession. That is by death and retirement included, but most of it occurs in transfer to other occupations. It far exceeds the annual loss of personnel in other professions, and of course it is a very wasteful loss.

Most business organizations, I am told, would regard it as absolutely catastrophic if they had an exodus of skilled workers on the scale of roughly 10 percent per year. Many able businessmen have told me that they simply could not operate their business with a 10 percent turnover among their skilled workers. But in our schools, Senator, that has become so commonplace that it is just routine, and we think nothing of it. We think nothing of the tremendous waste of human talent which is involved in that situation.

Why do they leave? They leave for a variety of reasons. We shall never had a situation in which everyone who begins teaching fulfills a lifetime of service, but perhaps I can epitomize why they leave in this simple illustration. Not long ago there came to my desk a very attractive pamphlet which was put out by a group of life-insurance companies, and the title of the pamphlet was "Wanted, Good Teachers To Investigate Better Jobs."

I read the pamphlet with interest. It was well written and well prepared and very persuasive. In effect, it invited the most competent teachers in America to come and help the life-insurance companies sell life insurance. It assured these men and women that in a few years they could move to an income level several times as high as the maximum they could ever hope to get under the teacher salary schedules. The pamphlet was filled with testimonials on the part of former teachers who had done that very thing, and who looked back without any regret at all upon their former penuriousness as teachers.

In engineering the situation is the same. You can see the advertisements for inexperienced engineers put out by the great industrial companies of this Nation. Typically, they will mention a beginning salary for these young men that is about equal to the average salary in teaching, an average which a teacher will reach after perhaps 10 or 15 or more years of successful teaching experience and long and arduous preparation.

Now, sir, I do not mean at all to imply that we should not have many engineers. We should. I do not mean to imply that we should not have able and devoted people of integrity and ability to sell us life

insurance when we need it. But, sir, I think there is something profoundly wrong with the scale of values in the Nation when it is possible to recruit from among the teachers of the young the people who are to sell your life insurance.

Those are the three points I should like to emphasize particularly at this time-more children, not enough buildings, not nearly enough teachers, and the situation is getting worse.

I would like to draw the committee's attention to another book which has just been published, a book entitled "The Uneducated" by Eli Ginzberg and Douglas W. Bray. This, too, is part of the study to which Senator Hill has referred, a study begun at Columbia University when President Eisenhower was the head of it.

The major conclusion is that the United States has 22 million persons who are functionally illiterate, and that if we are going to make the best use of our military strength and the fullest use of our economic well-being, and have a more complete growth in democracy, we must as a Nation move to deal with this situation.

I would like to give you just one or two quotations from The Uneducated if I may. One and one-half million young men out of eighteen million registered for the Armed Forces during the last war presented a serious educational problem. The same report of The Uneducated shows that this problem is closely related to the availability of good schools. The 12 States with the highest educational expenditure a decade earlier had a rejection rate during the war of 1.3 percent. That is rather low. The 12 States with the lowest educational expenditure a decade earlier had a rejection rate during the war of 9.1 percent. The same study declares, and I quote:

It is beyond argument that the Armed Forces were handicapped in the scale and speed of their mobilization in World War II by being forced to make a series of special adjustments to cope with the very large number of illiterate and poorly educated persons in the draft eligible ages.

But the real danger, as this report goes on to say, lies in the future. Suppose 5 years from now, or tomorrow or 10 years from now, the United States should be forced into an instant and full mobilization. In such an event time would be of the essence. It would be a great hardship and a great source of weakness in this Nation to be compelled to wait for educational repair work to be performed, and to convert uneducated and inadequately trained civilians into the minimum acceptable standard for a soldier's education.

Sir, it is apparently a settled policy now that the United States Government will help to meet a special burden which falls on communities where a military base or a big defense plant makes heavy demands on local taxes for financing education. I think you are well aware of the general outlines, at least, of the way in which the Federal Government moves into such areas and provides aid for building and the operation of schools.

Now, the Federal Government certainly has a legitimate interest in providing the educational opportunities of boys and girls in those areas. But let me ask, and this is perhaps a hypothetical or oratorical question, why are the children at a Navy shore installation or at a munitions factory town more important to the national defense than the children of some region that happened to be without a defense installation?

34808-53 -33

Senator CORDON. Do you think that they were deemed to be so?
Mr. CARR. I would say so.

Senator CORDON. Well, then, you do not fully understand the philosophy behind the act.

Mr. CARR. If the purpose of the act, sir, is to help communities which have many children and little resources, then I can only say that the act is failing in that purpose for there is no measurement of the ability of the community to finance its own schools. What we would like to see happen in the United States

Senator CORDON. I can discuss that one with you sometime, but go ahead.

Mr. CARR. All right, sir. I think what we would all like to see happen in the United States is a floor under educational opportunity so that any help that the United States Government gave would be given to those communities that have many children and little wealth.

Serator CORDON. That was the philosophy behind the early aid to education that was provided for when the new States came into the Union.

Mr. CARR. Yes.

Senator HILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. CARR. We would be happy to see that kind of philosophy revived and reenacted into law in this instance.

Senator CORDON. We are up against a lot of problems, aren't we, Doctor?

Mr. CARR. That is right.

Senator CORDON. If we are going to have a dual sovereignty system of government, then we are going to be faced with certain extreme situations, adverse conditions in one place and favorable in another. Mr. CARR. That is right.

Senator CORDON. Somewhere along the road perhaps we will have to look at the whole picture, if we can. But one of the problems that we have today can be traced to that situation. There are so many of our problems that immediate dollar aid, as much as immediate dollar aid is needed, will not answer.

Mr CARR. That is quite right. I fully agree with you. There is this fact to consider about aid to education. Such an expenditure is fructifying. On the other hand, lack of education completes and perpetuates a vicious circle in which poorly educated people produce low revenue and are therefore badly equipped to educate their children in return.

Senator CORDON. I agree with that.

Mr. CARR. Whereas the function of aid to education is these areas is a stimulating function and it begins by increasing the productivity of the people so that they can raise their own standards more and

more.

As to the question of inequality in education I would like to make it clear that I agree with you that inequalities cannot be eradicated, and we would not want in this country to have a ceiling and to say in effect to a community, "No matter how much you may want to have good schools, you must not spend any more than a certain amount."

Sir, all we ask for is a floor, a minimum opportunity for every youngster which is his minimum right just for the good and sufficient reason that he is born under the Stars and Stripes.

Senator CORDON. I would go with that 100 percent.

Mr. CARR. Thank you.

Well, from the standpoint of our way of life, of course, every young citizen is just as valuable and just as important to the Nation as any other, and each has the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and each has the same responsibility to his Government.

Senator CORDON. I do not know whether each one is as important, but I will go with you on this, that each one has a right to an equal opportunity to determine whether he is as important.

Mr. CARR. That is right. I think that is an excellent modification. Well, sir, I think that point is fairly well established in our philosophy. As I see it, this amendment now presents Congress with an opportunity to declare a national policy with regard to the use of a group of our natural resources to develop our human resources. Heretofore Federal assistance to education had been extended for excellent purposes: for the land-grant colleges, colleges for vocational education, for school lunches, and, most recently and expensively, for the veterans' education or for the construction of schools in the federally impacted areas.

Now, we have these two new studies which strongly suggest that the time has come when this Nation must share with the State and local communities part of the burden of the problem of general education, a problem of national scope-the fullest development of the brains and of the skills of all our young people.

You see, sir, it is all very well to talk about the advanced education of engineers and physicians, but the most advanced scientist, the most skilled engineer had to learn somewhere to read and write, and do his basic arithmetic before he could learn his algebra and trigonometry. And he learns that or fails to learn it according to the opportunity provided for him perhaps in some little remote one-teacher school or perhaps in some village school somewhere in the United States.

Senator CORDON. And some in front of a fireplace, as did the immortal Abe Lincoln.

Mr. CARR. That is entirely possible. And for that reason it seems to me our policy in this country should be one that, as I said earlier, regards every child as potentially important. The return on the investment on even one person in terms of education is of incalculable value; and by corollary reasoning the loss to the Nation in the neglected education of even one person could be of tremendous-of such tremendous value as to completely offset any possible saving by denying education.

Even if you look at the matter wholly in terms of cold, rational economics, and leave aside all theories of government-as we cannot do, but leave them aside for the moment-I think that the policy of supporting the schools of this Nation from this great source of national wealth which you now have before you is one that deserves the utmost favorable consideration by the Congress of the United States.

I appreciate, sir, the opportunity to appear before you and your willingness to join in discussing this matter.

Senator CORDON. Thank you very much,

Senator HILL. We want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Senator CORDON. We are happy to have had you here.

Senator HILL. We appreciate your attention and your interest, sir. I have seen you on the Appropriations Committee and I know how deep your interest in all these matters is affecting education. Senator CORDON. Thank you very much.

Mr. Clayton Orn is here at the request of the chairman. In the chairman's efforts to get a complete picture of the problem that we have, he has asked Mr. Orn, who is chairman of a legal committee of the oil operators who are interested in the outer shelf oil operations, among others, and who has heretofore appeared and testified before this committee on this subject matter over a period of years, to look over S. 1901 and to give the committee his views with respect to the adequacy of the bill. And let me say parenthetically that the Chair, who introduced this bill as a Member of the Senate, has never at all felt that the bill was adequate. It was intended as a worksheet from which to approach good legislation.

Mr. Orn has very kindly consented to go into the matter and has had other members of his group, including Mr. Pressler, who is here, and also a member of that legal committee, go into it.

We will now hear from Mr. Orn with respect not only to the provisions of S. 1901 but with respect to the other major problem before the committee, and that is the question of whether the administration of lands might properly, and let us say more wisely, be placed in the adjoining States by the extension of the laws of those States, or some of the applicable laws of those States, to the outer Continental Shelf. Of course, I did not ask Mr. Orn to come as an advocate on either side. I am sure he will not become an advocate of either side. But the committee is interested in the views of the industry itself as to what are the essential minimum provisions under which the industry can function under either philosphy. I would be glad, Mr. Orn, to hear from you with reference to the overall problem. I would like to have you make your statement, and I am quite sure that Senator Daniel and other members of the committee, as they arrive, will have some questions, and perhaps the Chair might have some.

STATEMENT OF CLAYTON ORN, HOUSTON, TEX., HEAD OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE OHIO CO. FOR THE STATES OF TEXAS AND NEW MEXICO

Mr. ORN. For the record, my name is Clayton Orn. I live in Houston, Tex., and I am head of the legal department of the Ohio Co. for the States of Texas and New Mexico.

I have testified before on matters regarding the submerged-lands legislation, and recently testified on the Holland bill.

I was invited in 1950, shortly after the decisions in the Texas and Louisiana cases, to appear before this committee and discuss S. 195, which was an interim bill introduced by Senator O'Mahoney, and invited to suggest such amendments as I thought were appropriate in order to make the bill workable in the event Congress should pass it, and necessary to permit the resumption of operation. Some of those amendments were added, and later the bill became Senate Joint Resolution 20, and I believe that S. 1901 incorporates into it some of the provisions of Senate Joint Resolution 20 with reference to the validation of State leases, and also with reference to a future leasing policy of the United States.